Talent Management for Faculty: Performance Management

Transcription

1 1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC P F Talent Management for Faculty: Performance Management In this report, we present case studies on the development and implementation of different models of performance management for faculty at U.S. institutions of higher education, primarily through examination of the processes of tenure and promotion. We also discuss best practices for managing faculty performance based on case study data and current trends in higher education administration. MARKET EVALUATION SURVEYING DATA ANALYSIS BENCHMARKING INNOVATIVE PRACTICES LITERATURE REVIEW

2 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Introduction Overview of Talent Management Talent management is a human resources process that emerged in the 1990s and has continued to receive recognition as an important component of strategic planning in all sectors. 1 Talent management is a series of business processes for human resources in six primary areas: Recruiting: Policies that focus on attracting and recruiting qualified candidates with competitive backgrounds; 2 Training and development opportunities: 3 Includes new employee orientation as well as professional development and compliance training opportunities for all employees; 4 Performance management processes: Processes used to monitor and measure employee performance and inform compensation policies; 5 Compensation and benefits: Policies that relate compensation directly to performance management so that wage/salary, incentives, and benefits align with business goals; 6 Succession and workforce planning: Integrated with the organization s strategic plan, these processes establish workforce plans, hiring plans, compensation budgets, promotion, transitioning, and other human resource requirements; 7 Retention programs: Efforts and non-monetary rewards and recognition programs aimed at retaining qualified and successful employees; 8 Talent management processes such as these are a persistent focus of domestic and international industry, based on the premise that any organization s single largest asset is its staff. Highly qualified staff and high-level performance are integral to the operation of a business. Although talent management practices are already well 1Hengst, Amy. Talent Management FAQ. HR World.< 2 Hengst, Amy. Talent Management FAQ. HR World. Op.cit. 3 Ibid. 4 Bersin, Josh. Talent Management: What is it? Why now? University of Michigan Business and Finance. Op.cit. 5 Hengst, Amy. Talent Management FAQ. HR World. Op.cit. 6 Bersin, Josh. Talent Management: What is it? Why now? University of Michigan Business and Finance. Op.cit. 7 Ibid. 8 Isukapally, Mythri. Employee Retention Talent Management. SSRN. November < 2

3 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER established in the corporate and industrial sectors, including succession management, development, and performance management, 9 many institutions of higher education have no such system in place for one of their most valuable assets - their faculty. 10 While many talent management systems are grounded in a set of business processes developed by their organizations, there are a few universal software and web-based solutions for talent management. Vendors such as Oracle, 11 Sage Software, Inc., 12 and Taleo 13 provide software applications that manage talent internally and provide the following services: 14 Insight into recruitment processes such as hiring requirements, job descriptions, feedback from applicants and future hiring needs; Incentive programs that attract and retain top talent; Metrics that determine current talent and industry trends, as well as forecast future needs; Employee self-service systems that provide information on benefits; Real-time salary information; Orientation for new workers; Performance management services for all workers; Employee-tracking systems to identify training and promotion opportunities. Talent Management in Higher Education The terms talent management and performance management refer to different principles of human resources (HR). Talent Management is the umbrella term that refers to general HR policy in maintaining standards and records for staff performance, and while performance management is part of talent management, it does not, for example, explicitly outline recruitment strategies or succession plans. Colleges and universities rarely have an integrated HR-based talent management system which monitors faculty exclusively. Such systems are difficult to establish, since the criteria for satisfactory performance among teaching and research faculty are specialized according to discipline and school, rather than according to the institution as a whole. 9 DDI. Executive Summary: DDI Survey Findings from the Conference Board 2006 Talent Management Strategies Conference. 10Lynch, Doug. Can Higher Education Manage Talent? Inside Higher Education. November, Oracle Higher Education. Information Connects: Oracle PeopleSoft Human Capital Management fro Higher Education. Op.cit. 12 HR World. Vendor Profile: Sage Software, Inc Taleo. Higher Education Quoted verbatim from: Hengst, Amy. Talent Management FAQ. HR World. Op.cit. 3

4 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Subsequently, faculty responsibilities differ substantially from those of non-academic personnel. Strictly academic, i.e., teaching and research, faculty are categorized and assessed separately from other university staff, by the department, Dean, and Provost through annual review and other required reviews during the probationary and posttenure periods. The overwhelming majority of large universities in the U.S. currently relies on the more traditional system, leaving performance management of academic faculty to department chairs and academic administrators, while the performance of nonacademic employees falls under the responsibilities of HR. We found no universities that formally incorporate HR principles into the management of faculty performance. Only very occasionally do HR personnel become involved in review, tenure, and promotion of faculty. This usually occurs when a faculty member s performance is substandard upon review and the administrator needs communicative strategies and/or a system of checks and balances in place for documentation purposes. Other than these occasional situations, faculty performance management for tenure-track and post-tenure faculty is primarily sustained by tenure and promotion policies and review procedures. The Future of Faculty Performance Management As higher education continues to reinvent itself as a result of increased student populations, diversity, and changing roles and generations of faculty and administrators, it seems logical that a streamlined HR-based model for all employees might ultimately prove to be more efficient and organized than the current system. The influx of a younger pool of faculty members, as well as staff, who have an entirely different set of expectations from that of earlier generations means that changes to the current system may need to take place. Institutions of higher education are beginning to realize the strategic value of talent management as a solution for dealing with these challenges, as well as for dealing with the recruitment and retention of talented faculty and the identification, retention, and professional development of underperforming faculty. Clint Davidson, the chief human resources officer at Duke University, states: Talent management challenges in higher education are formidable. As major employers, higher education is facing an aging population, increased demand for high productivity, demanding skill sets, gaps in the talent portfolio, and increasing costs.talent management is going to require our investment and relentless action. 15 In this report, it has been determined that all of the large, public universities profiled still rely on the traditional method, which separates performance management for faculty and staff, delegating the former to deans or provosts, and the latter to HR professionals. Some universities are finding ways to make performance standards 15 Butterfield, Barbara. Talent Management: Emphasis on Action. College of University Professional Association for Human Resources Journal. Spring/Summer Pg HR_Talent_Management.pdf 4

5 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER more transparent to junior and post-tenure faculty, in addition to providing professional development more requisitely. Even though, as has already been mentioned, no large public university appears to have attempted to fully integrate HR departments into the tenure and promotion system for faculty, there may be potential benefits for faculty in such a system. Junior faculty, as has also already been mentioned, are seeking more substantial guidance in the tenure process than their predecessors, and are concurrently mentored by earlier generations of tenured faculty, who typically have a more hands-off approach. Through a combination of mentoring by senior faculty and monitoring by nonacademic HR personnel, the process of tenure for junior faculty could, perhaps, become even more transparent, without burdening senior faculty to take on roles with which they are unfamiliar or even uncomfortable. Project management or human resource management software could similarly become a very useful tool for managing large numbers of faculty, as is the case for many large public universities, as well as for monitoring the performance of faculty in the compilation of portfolios and dossiers for annual, three-year, and/or six-year reviews. For post-tenure faculty, involving HR personnel and principles on some level could prevent departmental discord by having HR professionals, rather than long-standing colleagues, deliver reports about low performance and expectations for adequate progress. Difficulties in Implementing an HR-Based System The awarding of tenure for faculty is a process that is generally difficult to quantify. The requirements for faculty performance are not easily confined to a certain number of publications, a minimum level of student satisfaction, or a fixed amount of service on committees. As stated by the Vice Provost for Faculty Development at the University of Kansas, There are no guarantees for tenure and promotion it is ultimately a decision about future productivity. 16 The universities profiled for this report in many cases have not necessarily quantified performance management for faculty, but they have clarified expectations in a way that eliminates doubt as to what constitutes satisfactory progress. Ultimately, in order to create an HR-driven system that is applicable to faculty promotion and tenure, faculty must be made aware of the direct benefits to them that occur as a result of such a change. Simultaneously, HR personnel and academic administrators must work cooperatively, which requires an understanding on the parts of each entity to understand the ethical and logistical tasks and demands of the other. 16 Phone interview with Mary Lee Hummert. University of Kansas. August 19,. 5

6 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER COACHE Overview The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) is an interinstitutional consortium under the auspices of Harvard University that is concerned with best practices in the recruitment and retention of junior faculty in higher education. Part of the mission of COACHE is to collect data which then is applied for work with administrators in the implementation of effective institutional policy that improves outcomes in faculty retention. COACHE s data do not typically characterize the needs of post-tenure faculty, though findings may occasionally be applicable to such faculty. Perspective on Performance Management for Faculty COACHE data suggest that junior faculty, particularly Generations X and Y and the upcoming Millenials, are requesting consistent feedback from superiors. This strays from the needs of faculty from earlier generations, for whom the need for ongoing support and feedback was less desired, or perhaps more accurately stated, less often provided. Earlier generations and younger generations of faculty are clearly divided in their desire for specificity of expectations. As these younger generations of faculty begin on the tenure-track, they also desire clarity, not only in regard to their progress toward meeting the requirements for tenure, but also in regard to the requirements themselves. COACHE survey data show that junior faculty in institutions with explicit expectations for tenure and promotion experience greater job satisfaction and sufficient, if not excellent, productivity. Junior faculty in particular also benefit from mentoring programs. Formal mentoring programs are encouraged by COACHE. 17 COACHE Data in This Report In its assessment of a variety of criteria contributing to the job satisfaction of junior faculty, COACHE identified several institutions as exemplary institutions in the areas of overall tenure practices, tenure clarity, tenure reasonableness, and policy effectiveness. COACHE also collected data on other aspects of work satisfaction that are not applicable to the content of this report. Though not all of the public universities listed as exemplary are profiled in this report, several are included: Auburn University, North Carolina State University, Ohio State University, University of Kansas, and University of North Carolina at Pembroke. 17 Phone interview with Cathy Trower, Research Director, COACHE. August 13,. 6

7 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Case Studies Auburn University Overview Auburn University has approximately 1,200 teaching and research faculty and 2,000 administrative and professional faculty. The Auburn University Provost s Office has implemented a self-described holistic approach to tracking and monitoring faculty performance. 18 Upon appointment, the initial offer letter extended to faculty candidates specifies the percentage of time that will be devoted to research, teaching, outreach/extension, administration, and service. In providing this, Auburn seeks to make explicit the expectations for new faculty at any rank from the moment of hire. Expectations are determined based on discipline and faculty position. Clinical positions and research positions differ in the selection and distribution of tasks. Faculty Annual Review Every faculty member undergoes review each academic year, known as Faculty Annual Review (FAR), which is completed at the departmental level by the end of each spring term. This review is requisite for all faculty, including non-tenure track and non-tenured faculty, as well as for part-time instructors. 19 Post-tenure faculty and junior faculty are equally subject to FAR. The review consists of quantitative and qualitative assessment of faculty performance, by way of evaluation of the faculty member s curriculum vitae and portfolio materials and subsequent discussion with the faculty member, in addition to a formal, standardized set of criteria that are evaluated on a score of five designators ranging from unacceptable to exemplary. Reviews are subsequently seen by the appropriate Dean and ultimately reach the Provost. The Provost s office keeps records of faculty performance using spreadsheets in Microsoft Excel, which facilitates the identification of those faculty who demonstrate exemplary, satisfactory, and unacceptable performance. As a result, the Provost s office is positioned to quickly identify and reward high performing faculty and to suggest to the appropriate deans the need to pursue professional development for those faculty with unacceptable performance. The overarching goal of FAR is to provide all faculty with constant feedback through continuous, ongoing review. 18 Phone interview with J. Emmett Winn, Interim Provost, Auburn University, August 18,. 19 Auburn does not use the term adjunct to refer to instructors who teach as little as one class, one semester, opting instead for the term part-time instructor. 7

8 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Junior Faculty In addition to FAR, junior faculty undergo a formal and standardized third-year review conducted departmentally. All tenured department faculty participate in the review and vote as to the junior faculty member s progress toward tenure. If, upon review in the third year, the junior faculty member is found to be making sufficient progress toward the requirements for tenure, he or she will be given extensive feedback for improvement and continued progress. If upon review the junior faculty member is found to have made insufficient progress, this information is communicated to the appropriate Dean who subsequently informs the faculty member that he or she will no longer continue at the university after twelve months. Prior to the third year, junior faculty have been assessed by FAR and their progress has consistently been assessed as a result, and therefore, the notification of noncontinuation should, ideally, not be unanticipated. Those junior faculty who continue to go up for tenure may do so in their fifth or sixth year, and should they not make tenure in their first attempt, may go on for a second attempt the following year. Again, the logic behind this system is based on the premise of FAR, that junior faculty will ideally have an idea of how their performance is contributing to their potential for promotion. The fifth or sixth year review process, like the third year review, begins in the department and ends with the Provost. Post-Tenure Faculty It was the need for effective post-tenure review that inspired the evolution of the present system at Auburn, which has been developing since approximately Post-tenure faculty at Auburn are annually reviewed via FAR and these records are maintained by the Provost s office as well. If any post-tenure faculty member receives an overall rating of unacceptable twice in a six-year period, this automatically triggers a formal post-tenure review, which may result in the termination of the faculty member. Aside from FAR, no separate system for the evaluation of post-tenure faculty is in place at Auburn University. Recognition and Intervention The primary means of rewarding high performance at Auburn is monetary. All increases in compensation, other than promotion, are based on merit. For those faculty identified as underperforming, attention is directed toward the area in which progress is not being made. For professional development in teaching, Auburn s Biggio Center for Enhancement in Teaching and Learning provides one-on-one consultation as well as many other resources for the improvement of teaching. For research, mentoring from departmental faculty is generally encouraged. In other areas such as service and extension/outreach, specific measures may be taken to improve performance in these areas. In many cases, the intervention provided is individually determined by the department, by the college in which the department is housed, and/or by the Provost s office. 8

9 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Orientation and Training As mentioned above, Auburn specifies expectations explicitly in the initial letter of offer. New faculty also attend New Faculty Convocation at the beginning of the academic year. This program provides new faculty with an overview of general university policy as well as that related specifically to performance. For heads and chairs, the Provost s office hosts a series of meetings, approximately eight per academic year that helps them to cultivate their leadership roles in the review process. Each spring there are also university-wide workshops on topics in tenure and promotion. Methods Auburn relies predominantly on a combination of policy, software, and staff to track faculty performance and distinguish high and low performance. The Provost s office uses spreadsheets in Microsoft Excel to record the results of annual reviews. Faculty generally turn in dossiers and portfolios of materials for consideration for annual review, tenure, and promotion decisions in hard copy. Results In the seven to eight year period that this system has been developing at Auburn, it has been welcomed by most faculty. COACHE data name Auburn as an exemplary institution in overall tenure practices, tenure reasonableness, and overall policy effectiveness. Due to its novelty, institutionally-specific outcomes in productivity and retention have yet to be determined. However, the Interim Provost at Auburn University believes that the system has been effective based on its holistic, careerview approach. Appeals on tenure decisions have been procedurally-driven, and not performance-driven. The Interim Provost attributes this to the annual review process as well as the holistic approach, which, as has already been mentioned here, are purposefully thorough in order to ensure that no faculty member is unclear about his or her progress. Additionally, Auburn makes an effort to have all policies explicit and available online for consultation by faculty at any time. 9

10 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER North Carolina State University Overview North Carolina State University s current system for managing faculty performance has been in place since Similar to Auburn University, NCSU adopts a holistic approach which outlines expectations initially and also evaluates faculty performance annually in addition to during the tenure and promotion process. NC State also has a formal post-tenure review process which has been in place for over a decade. Statement of Mutual Expectations During a faculty member s first year, he or she works with his or her department head in the formulation of the Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME), which specifies the percentage of distribution among six realms of responsibility defined by the university using the following terms: Teaching and Mentoring of Undergraduate and Graduate Students; Discovery of Knowledge Through Discipline-Guided Inquiry; Creative Artistry and Literature; Technological and Managerial Innovation; Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside of the University, Service to Professional Societies and Service and Engagement within the University Itself. Department heads and faculty members work together to develop the SME in line with the discipline- and department-specific realms of responsibility also taking into consideration rank, appointment, and specialization of the faculty member. The official policy states: The Statement of Mutual Expectation (SME) is to be a written description of the appropriate mix of the individual faculty member s realms of responsibility and the mutually-agreed-upon expectations from both the faculty member and the department during the faculty member s appointment. Every faculty member is to have a SME, which is to be prepared in consultation with their department head. Every faculty member is to maintain this document throughout their course of service to the university. The SME will be included in the RPT dossier. The SME will also be used in post tenure reviews. The SME is to be prepared during the initial year (within 12 months) of appointment as a member of the faculty. Failure to develop or agree to changes in a SME must be brought to the attention of the dean by the department head. Consultation should then occur between the faculty member, the department head and the dean to resolve the matters at issue. The SME is to be memorialized as a dated document signed by the faculty member, department head and, at the discretion of the college, the dean and placed in the faculty member s personnel file. 20 The SME functions as the initial set of expectations that a faculty member at any rank is to regularly fulfill. Subsequently, annual activity reports are submitted by all faculty and reviewed by department heads. These reviews contribute to the faculty member s knowledge of his or her perceived level of performance, and also serve as a basis for

11 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER changes to his or her compensation when appropriate. These annual reviews do not directly contribute to evaluation for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, though in some departments they may contribute to decisions of reappointment for non-tenure track faculty. The annual review also gives tenure-track and post-tenure faculty consistent feedback in preparation for more comprehensive pre- and post-tenure reviews. Tenure-Track Faculty In the fourth year of a tenure-track appointment, faculty undergo formal and comprehensive review by tenured faculty in the department, and this review determines whether or not the faculty member is making satisfactory progress and will be reappointed. For those faculty who are reappointed, the fourth year review provides a full evaluation of their progress by tenured faculty in the department. In the event that the fourth year review reveals inadequate progress, junior faculty are made aware of this and presented with a full evaluation from tenured faculty in the department. Though not all departments have formal mentoring programs, many departments do assign mentors to tenure-track faculty, and in the event that a review shows less than adequate progress, this mentoring proves to be particularly valuable. A similar comprehensive review occurs in the sixth year, and ultimately results in the awarding or denial of tenure. In the event that the fourth year review reveals inadequate progress, junior faculty are made aware of this and presented with a full evaluation from tenured faculty in the department. Though departments do not generally have formal mentoring programs, many departments do assign mentors to tenure-track faculty, and in the event that a review shows less than adequate progress, this mentoring proves to be particularly valuable. A similar comprehensive review occurs in the sixth year when the decision is made whether or not to award tenure and promotion. Post-Tenure Faculty At NC State, post-tenure review occurs for all tenured faculty every five years. The department forms a committee of peers, the Post Tenure Review Committee (PTRC). The faculty member compiles a dossier of materials for consideration, and the PTRC evaluates this and assesses the faculty member s performance based on the expectations outlined in the SME. The PTRC then votes on whether or not the faculty member is meeting expectations. In the event that the committee finds that expectations are not being met sufficiently, the department head and faculty member develop a specific professional development plan in order to improve performance, based on a substantial amount of feedback from the PTRC. However, after several consecutive post-tenure reviews in which the faculty member s performance is found to be insufficient, the university may elect to let the faculty member go. 11

12 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER In the event that the faculty member is meeting expectations sufficiently, the PTRC writes a report on its findings, and this report is similarly provided to the faculty member. Ultimately, as a result of this post-tenure review process, all faculty receive consistent and regular feedback regarding performance. Recognition and Intervention Compensation and promotion of faculty are the primary means of incentive and reward for outstanding performance. NC State also gives teaching awards to faculty at all ranks and has distinguished and endowed professorships for outstanding performance. Interventions typically take the form of professional development strategies and feedback from departmental peers, including the department head. Orientation and Training All new faculty, regardless of rank, undergo an orientation prior to the start of the fall semester. Ongoing professional development and explication of university policy, including reorientation for department chairs, is available through seminars and webinars, and all policy is available online on the Provost s website and provides logical and intuitive navigation through the policies for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. The availability and organization of materials on the web is achieved particularly effectively at NC State. Methods NC State primarily uses a combination of policy and staff to manage faculty performance. Faculty dossiers for reappointment, tenure, and promotion purposes are, to date, still compiled in hard copy, rather than in digital form. The reevaluation of policy occurs regularly. Results The post-tenure review system has been in place at NC State since 1998, and the SME since The Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs at NC State observes that the system in place for managing faculty performance at NC State is very explicit, which is necessary for such systems, as they tend to be complex, and while no system is perfect, constant policy revision can improve the system. COACHE data place NC State among exemplary institutions for overall tenure practices and tenure reasonableness. 12

13 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Ohio State University Overview Faculty performance management at The Ohio State University (OSU) is based on a model that has evolved over time with a continuous focus on achieving excellence along all dimensions of research, teaching, and service. 21 OSU has a student body of over 60,000 students and approximately 3,000 full-time tenured and tenure-track teaching and research faculty. 22 COACHE data support faculty satisfaction with OSU s policies in tenure and promotion practices. Annual Review OSU requires a written annual review of all regular full-time faculty and specifies the reasons for this in its Faculty Handbook as follows: to assist faculty in improving professional productivity; to establish the goals against which faculty performance will be assessed in the foreseeable future; and to document faculty performance in the achievement of stated goals in order to determine resource allocations progress [and] the need for remedial steps. 23 A very recent revision (August ) to the annual review process at OSU is the addition of a discussion with the department head along with the formal written review. The process of annual review differs for tenure-track and post-tenure faculty, and as such, will be further specified in those sections below. For both types of faculty, the following areas are addressed in the annual review: teaching, new course development, publications, funding, service, honors, and awards. Additionally, for those faculty who have advised doctoral students who completed their degrees within the year under review, information about where such graduates became employed is included. Each department head is required to keep a current curriculum vitae for each faculty member in the unit, and each faculty member is required to annually provide documentation of his or her performance, including the CV. The annual review is completed by each department head and submitted to the faculty member, who may choose to submit a response to the review if he or she wishes. 21 Ohio State University. Principles for Faculty Reward Systems in a High Performance Academic Culture. Provided by Vice Provost Susan Williams. 22 This does not include clinical faculty, 100% research faculty, or part-time faculty. 23 The Ohio State University. Volume 2: Faculty. OAA Policies and Procedures Handbook. OSU Academic Affairs website. 13

14 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Tenure-Track Faculty The annual review process for tenure-track faculty (known as probationary faculty at OSU) resembles the more formal review process for tenure that takes place in the fourth and sixth years of probationary hire. Annual review materials for probationary faculty are to maintain the standards for the dossier required for tenure and promotion. The annual review takes written form and a discussion also takes place between the department head and the faculty member under review. When annual reviews are positive, a letter of reappointment is submitted to the appropriate dean. For fourth-year reviews, candidates are required to compile their dossiers utilizing the in-house software program for performance management of faculty, OSU: pro (see Methods below for more detailed information about this system). If the review shows satisfactory performance at the departmental and school or college levels, reappointment is recommended. In the event that performance is unsatisfactory, termination of the contract is often the outcome, and such decisions are made at the level of the Office of Academic Affairs. The fourth-year review process very closely resembles the sixth-year review process in which tenure is awarded or denied. The primary difference between the fourth-year review and the sixth-year review at OSU is that sixth-year reviews require external evaluations, and fourth-year reviews make such evaluations optional as part of the dossier. Ultimately, tenure decisions are made at the departmental, college, and university levels. Post-Tenure Faculty OSU does not appear to conduct formal post-tenure reviews beyond the annual performance appraisal. The tenure process for promotion from Associate to Full Professor mirrors that of the promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor. Recognition and Intervention In the event of positive reviews, the most common recognition is the awarding of tenure, granting of a promotion, or compensatory acknowledgment. OSU also has several annual awards given to faculty for achievements in teaching, scholarship, service, and diversity enhancement. 24 In the event of negative reviews, particularly in the fourth-year, the course of action is generally nonrenewal of the appointment. In some instances, professional development or mentoring may be required in place of termination. In some instances of denial of tenure in the sixth-year review for tenuretrack faculty, a seventh-year review may be permitted in order to give exceptional faculty another opportunity to achieve tenure. Orientation and Training New full-time faculty receive orientation prior to the beginning of the academic year, which is sponsored by the Office of Academic Affairs and the University Center for 24 The Ohio State University. University Awards. 14

15 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER the Advancement of Teaching. Workshops and training on a variety of topics, both related to academic employment and unrelated, are offered through HR at OSU. Methods OSU has an in-house designed interface for faculty performance management known as OSU: pro, where pro is shorthand for Profiles of University Professors and Professionals. This system is designed for use in the compilation of dossier materials for faculty at all ranks. Its use is characterized by OSU in the following userfocused description: By design, OSU:pro helps to organize your scholarly activity, streamline the building of your dossier, and end duplicative efforts in reporting to help save time and money across the academic enterprise. Our tool also communicates your professional accomplishments to visitors searching for local expertise, thereby expanding opportunities for the community to interact and engage with us. OSU:pro puts knowledge management into practice - by reshaping the tools we use to document and share our knowledge and skills here at The Ohio State University. 25 Of other universities profiled in this report, OSU is the only one that has developed this type of system in order to more effectively document faculty progress. Not only does this simplify the tenure and promotion process on many levels, it also seeks to promote sustainability efforts as well as promote community outreach more generally. Results COACHE data rank OSU among exemplary institutions for overall tenure practices, tenure reasonableness, and overall policy. This suggests, at the very least, that tenuretrack faculty find the OSU policies for performance management for faculty to be transparent. 25 The Ohio State University. OSU:pro. 15

16 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER University of Kansas Overview The University of Kansas (KU) has approximately 2,000 full-time teaching and research faculty and relies on assessment of faculty performance at the departmental or school level through annual review as well as through close supervision of faculty and regular review and revision of minimum expectations for sufficient progress. KU has general guidelines for annual review and specific policy for tenure and promotion. The Vice Provost for Faculty Development describes the current system at KU as one that makes a difference but one that is simultaneously cumbersome. 26 This sentiment is common among the universities profiled for this report in that the task of making policy simultaneously explicit and effective tends to require a more complex system. Annual Review The standards for annual review of faculty are generally guided by the administration and individually specified by schools and departments. Each unit is required to have a Faculty Evaluation Plan (FEP) which is reviewed and, when necessary, revised every three years to accommodate changing needs and expectations. Because each department and/or school conducts reviews, each unit does so differently, though there are general guidelines and recommendations for effective reviews provided by the administration. The KU policy statement for annual review in this regard states: Each academic unit has an approved Faculty Evaluation Plan that articulates academic responsibilities, the system for the annual evaluation of its faculty, faculty development when appropriate, and due process information in the event any disagreement should arise in the course of the evaluation. 27 Additionally, the FEP must include clear standards for adequate performance of academic responsibilities that are consistent with expectations for faculty at a research university. 28 Annual review at KU requires that departments evaluate all faculty members, tenuretrack, tenured, and non-tenure track each academic year, and further, that the review be presented in written form to the faculty member, and that the department chair and faculty member discuss the review in person. In the event that substandard performance is an issue, such reviews are forwarded to the Provost s office, and administrators in conjunction with HR staff meet with the faculty member to outline the expectations for satisfactory performance. Annual review is performed to ensure that all faculty, regardless of rank or tenure status, are 26 Phone interview with Mary Lee Hummert, University of Kansas. August 19,

17 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER carrying out all expected academic responsibilities. Annual Review serves a variety of purposes, and therefore is not solely designed to be applicable to the awarding or denial of tenure. However, these reviews do give tenure-track and post-tenure faculty a sense of how their performance is perceived, and therefore, on some level, keep them consistently informed in this regard. One of KU s General Principles for Developing Faculty Evaluation Plans states: The annual evaluation process should yield multiple outcomes, including information for departmental planning, merit salary decisions, progress toward promotion and/or tenure, differential allocation of effort, and strategies for renewal or development. 29 Junior Faculty Halfway through the six year probationary period, tenure-track faculty undergo a Progress Toward Tenure Review (PTTR) conducted by the college in which their department is housed. If the PTTR shows unsatisfactory progress, the faculty member s contract may be terminated, or interventions such as increased mentoring by department faculty and consultation with appropriate university resources for teaching may be required. Post-Tenure Faculty There is no formal process for post-tenure review at Kansas. Annual review provides some monitoring of the performance of post-tenure faculty. For unsatisfactory performance, faculty may lose tenure, or may receive a differential allocation of effort resulting in a lower percentage of expectation in the deficient area, whether it is research, teaching, or service. The Provost makes such decisions and maintains personnel files for such faculty. Recognition and Intervention The recognition of high performing or low performing faculty may occur as the result of annual review and PTTR, although other means of identification at the departmental or school level may also occur. In the event that high performance is to be rewarded, a raise in salary, the granting or tenure or promotion, or another type of compensation is the usual way this is accomplished. Additionally, if a faculty member shows accomplishment in the form of obtaining a research grant or fellowship which requires him or her to be away from campus and unable to fulfill his or her role at the university during that time, KU may provide funding in addition to the grant or fellowship when applicable in order to match the faculty member s usual salary and benefits. KU also has distinguished professorships which may be awarded to high performing tenured faculty

18 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER Orientation and Training A one-day new faculty orientation is held prior to the fall semester for all incoming tenure-track and post-tenure faculty. Departments/units are required to explain their FEP to all faculty. All materials related to annual review and tenure and promotion from the administrative level are available online in the KU Policy Library. Methods KU uses a combination of policy and staff to monitor and record faculty performance. Faculty maintain hard copy dossiers and portfolios, although the Vice Provost for Faculty Development hopes that an electronic system for the maintenance and submission of materials may soon be integrated in order to simplify the process. Annual reviews are conducted and maintained by departments, and the personnel files of faculty with substandard performance are maintained by the Provost s office. Results The policies detailed in this report are relatively new at the University, and as such, no institutionally-specific data on their effectiveness are available. However, COACHE data places the University of Kansas among exemplary institutions for tenure practices overall, tenure reasonableness, and overall policy effectiveness. 30 The Vice Provost for Faculty Development believes that the system has reduced anxiety for faculty somewhat, and that because faculty have multiple opportunities to submit their materials, i.e. via annual review, they are, therefore, reminded each year of the status of their performance. An additional change that has made a significant difference in the effectiveness of policy is the sharing of review information with the faculty member under review, and additionally, the option for the faculty member to respond to the review. Prior to implementation of this policy, the process was slightly more enigmatic from the viewpoint of the faculty member, who rarely had access to the review

19 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER University of North Carolina at Pembroke Overview The University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNCP) is one of seventeen schools in the University of North Carolina system, with approximately 6,500 students and 350 faculty members. Though it is the smallest of campuses in this regard included in our study, it has been included here on the recommendation of the Research Director at COACHE based on the positive review it received from junior faculty as reflected in COACHE data. Annual Review Each year in a self-evaluation, faculty members evaluate the amount of time they have devoted to teaching, research, and service, and include percentages they expect to allocate in the upcoming year. Because UNCP is a smaller campus, teaching allocations are the heaviest percentage for most faculty and must be at least 50%, although for most faculty they are closer to 70%. Research is expected to be allocated to 10-40%. Every faculty member undergoes annual review by his or her department chair which ensures that these expectations are being met. In addition to a self-evaluation prepared by the faculty member, which includes a lengthy narrative of accomplishments over the past year and plans for the upcoming year, the chair prepares a written, summative evaluation taking into account the faculty member s self-evaluation, as well as student evaluations. The faculty member s performance is evaluated as distinguished, very good, adequate, or deficient in each of the areas of teaching, research, and service, as well as overall performance. The chair provides the faculty member with a copy of the review, and the faculty member signs the review to acknowledge having seen it. The faculty member can respond to an evaluation through a written rebuttal, if he or she thinks there is reason to do so, and the rebuttal becomes part of the permanent record of the review. The Assistant Vice Chancellor for Institutional Effectiveness at UNCP points out, however, that because of the small size of the campus, faculty members are given more consistent feedback than is provided only by annual review. In regard to performance that may be rated as deficient, such concerns may be addressed on a case by case basis, rather than left unmentioned until annual assessment. It is likely that in smaller departments at larger universities, this may also be the case, though this report does not provide specific data in this regard. Junior Faculty For tenure-track faculty, review for tenure typically occurs in the sixth year but may occur earlier if the faculty member wishes to initiate the process before the sixth year. The faculty member nominates three colleagues to be on his/her Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC), one of which is a guaranteed member. The composition of the 19

20 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER PEC is entirely at the discretion of the department chair (except for the one guaranteed member); however, the chair usually does appoint the individuals nominated by the faculty member. The chair and the PEC independently conduct a review of the faculty member s performance over the years at UNCP preceding the bid for tenure. This review is based on a number of items, including recent annual evaluations, the faculty member s self-evaluation, course syllabi and materials, curriculum vitae, and classroom observations. The PEC and the department chair make recommendations as to whether tenure should be granted or denied. The faculty member under review sees and acknowledges having seen the reviews, though this does not suggest that he or she is in full agreement with them. These materials are then passed along to the Dean of the college or school in which the department is housed. The Dean composes a review, which the faculty member reads and acknowledges, and which he or she may rebut if desired. All materials are then passed, along with the other reviews, to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, a group of annually appointed faculty. This committee evaluates all materials and makes a recommendation, and submits this to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and to the faculty member under review, who may, once again, write a rebuttal if so desired. The Provost makes a recommendation to the Chancellor, who ultimately makes the final decision at the campus level regarding tenure, promotion, and compensation. The decision then is submitted for approval to the UNCP Board of Trustees, followed by the President of the UNC system and the UNC Board of Governors. Post-Tenure Faculty Associate Professors may go up for tenure to Full Professor as early as the sixth year of tenure. The review process is basically the same as that for tenure-track faculty. Every five years, post-tenure faculty members undergo post-tenure review, which is similar to the process for annual review. Recognition and Intervention The evaluation process of faculty annually, in combination with reviews for tenure and promotion, as well as post-tenure review, all contribute to the ability of the faculty member to have consistent and regular feedback as to the acceptability of his or her performance. In the event that performance is substandard or unsatisfactory, different measures may be taken, depending on the number of times the faculty member s performance has been so assessed, ranging from remediation by way of the development of a specific plan for and by the faculty member in cooperation with administration and the departmental chair; denial of tenure or promotion; termination of contract; or refusal of higher compensation. The most common incentives for good performance are promotion and tenure, merit salary increases, and awards. The UNCP campus holds a Faculty Banquet each year where awards are 20

21 ACADEMY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE SEPTEMBER given to faculty who have been nominated by their department chairs for excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. There are opportunities for recognition within the University of North Carolina system as well. Orientation and Training New faculty orientation is held every year for all new full-time faculty. The Teaching and Learning Center at UNCP also offers workshops each year that contribute to faculty members understanding of the process of tenure and promotion, with an emphasis on the proper compilation and presentation of materials for the dossier for faculty going up for promotion and/or tenure that year. Department chairs, who provide valuable input in the tenure and promotion process, are provided with special professional development through the Provost s office. HR also offers workshops for faculty and staff on general issues such as workplace safety and the online employment system. Methods Performance of faculty is managed by a combination of policy and staff. No software or electronic methods are currently used in the annual review or tenure and promotion processes. The Assistant Vice Chancellor for Institutional Effectiveness says that UNCP is in the process of developing a way to make faculty dossiers at least, in part, electronic. UNCP does not integrate HR practices or staff for talent management into the system for managing and evaluating faculty performance. HR s only role in academic employment is in managing the hiring process. Results As has already been mentioned, COACHE data place the University of North Carolina at Pembroke among exemplary institutions for overall tenure practices and tenure reasonableness. The Assistant Vice Chancellor for Institutional Effectiveness has found the system to be well-received by faculty in that there has been no negative response. Because UNCP has primarily, in the past, been a teaching institution, recent growth in the student population and the number of faculty heavily involved in research and service has made the situation change somewhat, and subsequently, adjustments to the existing system have been necessary. Of primary importance to UNCP is that the system be transparent, and that it recruits and retains talented and diverse faculty members. UNCP is in a rural location that some faculty find to be a difficult place to be. The Assistant Vice Chancellor suggests that most faculty are happy, but that effective policy helps to make this so in a challenging location. 21